georgerm Posted May 27, 2012 Author Share Posted May 27, 2012 Those in denial and the outright clueless when it comes to BF seems to contribute greatly to the negative mystic associated with BF. The clueless lash out and some gravitate to the antiBF society. These people want to stamp out news of BF like a grass fire. They don't want the monster in the woods to be true. BF in the woods is a hard pill to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Those in denial and the outright clueless when it comes to BF seems to contribute greatly to the negative mystic associated with BF. The clueless lash out and some gravitate to the antiBF society. These people want to stamp out news of BF like a grass fire. They don't want the monster in the woods to be true. BF in the woods is a hard pill to swallow. What the hey? This thread says more about some Bigfoot enthusiasts than it does so-called "denialists". Good gravy. Y'all have an image of Bigfoot that belongs in the next Avengers movie, fighting alongside Captain America and the Hulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think bigfoot denial stems from a deeply rooted need to feel superior. Seeing one seems to wrench that away from a witness.The attitude of "I haven't seen it , therefore it can't be there" runs a close second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think bigfoot denial stems from a deeply rooted need to feel superior. Seeing one seems to wrench that away from a witness.The attitude of "I haven't seen it , therefore it can't be there" runs a close second. sy, The only thing I deny is that you have enough evidence for Bigfoot to make my doubt implausible. Also, I have no need to feel superior because I am not superior. Also, you have in the past criticized skeptics for appearing to know what others think. Now you are saying "bigfoot denial" is "deeply rooted" in a superiority complex. Really? The "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't be there" comment is a non-sequitur and I know it doesn't apply to me and other skeptics. Try: "I haven't seen it, so I'm not obliged to believe it exists because someone else says they have (especially considering the preponderance of evidence of absence)." A little bit more nuanced. sy, you have a beautiful Memorial Day and happy Bigfoot hunting! I'll be pulling for your vindication via the Ketchum paper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Gotcha Jerry, interesting that you took it that way,and I left it open to interpretation on purpose. Feeling superior to other living things is another interpretation you could have gone with. Our ideas that we should have had a specimen long ago is evidence of my point, thus many choose denial. BF either exists or it doesn't, but if it does, it HAS kicked our arrogant butts at the game of hide & seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted May 28, 2012 Author Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) I think bigfoot denial stems from a deeply rooted need to feel superior. Seeing one seems to wrench that away from a witness.The attitude of "I haven't seen it , therefore it can't be there" runs a close second. You have a good point, since BF seems to be one animal we can't out smart, capture, or easily kill. They do seem to rival human intelligence when it comes to "forest smarts'. Is this part of our personna and BF shakes up what we believe about our human culture? We see ourselves out done in what we hold dear..................forest moxy. We are totally outdone by BF and humbling ourselves to show respect is hard for some to do. If I see BF, I may bow down and act like the Pope is before me! Hope this works for a friendly encounter along with some food gifts. Always hike with food gifts just in case..................take apples, peanut butter, what else? Taking a big 44 mag may not be the way to go since there are probably more than one..... Now Daniel Boone was 'forest smart' and it was said he killed a BF in a cave. Can anyone document this issue? southernyahoo, on 28 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said: "I think bigfoot denial stems from a deeply rooted need to feel superior. Seeing one seems to wrench that away from a witness.The attitude of "I haven't seen it , therefore it can't be there" runs a close second." This seems accurate to me. sy, The only thing I deny is that you have enough evidence for Bigfoot to make my doubt implausible. Also, I have no need to feel superior because I am not superior. Also, you have in the past criticized skeptics for appearing to know what others think. Now you are saying "bigfoot denial" is "deeply rooted" in a superiority complex. Really? This could be true. The "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't be there" comment is a non-sequitur and I know it doesn't apply to me and other skeptics. Try: "I haven't seen it, so I'm not obliged to believe it exists because someone else says they have (especially considering the preponderance of evidence of absence)." A little bit more nuanced. Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. What is your premise? How is this a logical fallacy? Logic tells up BF exists. ...............Everyone is entitled to one opinion. Now study and read more about BF to strengthen your premise. sy, you have a beautiful Memorial Day and happy Bigfoot hunting! I'll be pulling for your vindication via the Ketchum paper! Today is going well, and interesting comments................thanks Edited May 28, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts